Worst Military Commander of WWII?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote:

I have to admit, I don't know many. But Major-General Keller comes to mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That counts! Well done!

But was Keller yeller?

[von shrad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Monty gets my vote, maybe not up there at the very top, but definitely in the running. An arrogant, pompous ass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehehe. Hit the nail right on the head Herr Oberst.

I also think that the people that came up with the 'Repple Depot'(sp?) system for the American replacement program deserve to be at the top of the list.

von shrad

And let's not forget about Mensch either.

[von shrad]

...and I agree with s_e_avenger. Mark Clark ranks right up there too.

[Tanaka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kburns24:

Zhukov has to be up there as one of the worst commanders. After the Stalin purges, this idiot is given the reins? Stalin wouldn't have had nearly the amount of losses had he not killed his best military minds early in the war.

#1 Hitler, of course. He meddled too much. If he left his military decisions up to the experts we would have had a cold war with the Nazis instead of the USSR.

#2 Stalin, nothing more be to be said about this one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:eek:

UGA BUGA UGA BUGA UGA BU...

[Capt. Vance Astrovich]

Zhukov! Zhukov? Man, I was just going to answer with Hitler, just to cast my vote, and leave it at that! But then I see someone actually suggesting Zhukov? The Commisar has ampley defended Zhukov, who would likely lead in a poll for the Best General of the war. Defender of Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad!

I cringed at the suggestion of Churchill too, for to me he was a great man. But his charisma that helped steel the nation in it's darkest hour was his greatest contribution. I have heard of some not so great ideas Churchill had, however he didn't have complete and unfettered power to implement them like Hitler did.

But yes, Hitler was the worst Commander. When they invaded Russia, he could have won the peoples of that country over so easily. Instead, he proclaimed them sub-humans whose lives were worthless. They had no choice but to fight or to die! Of course this is only one of countless blunders he made. I stop here.

Zhukov?!?!?!

[bojangles]

Monty

[Simon Fox]

I go with Jason's choice Graziani was a real dunderhead . Mind you one always has to consider that the quality of the opposition and incompetence by ones subordinates can make even competent generals look silly. Macarthur's generalship in the Phillippines and later in the South West Pacific was less than stellar but not quite at the "worst" level. Characterising a burning obsession with "returning" and doing so by trampling over inumerable corpses of ones own men as "island hopping" is hubris indeed especially when one manages to pull the wool over so many eyes.

Personally I'd have to go for Paulus and his military and moral failure at Stalingrad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst:

What, no mention thus far of that certain general who only won in Afrika because he waited until the numerical superiority tilted the battlefield such that my own grandmother could have led those forces to victory?

The one who blew every timetable prediction he made about advancing in the weeks following the Normandy invasion, then had the gall to note that the master strategy of landings and breakout was the toughest he ever commanded?

And who the hell devises a plan where your advance relies on a single elevated road? The planned axis of advance that every military man from Holland knew was insane. The route that Holland armed forces had wargamed in the past and discounted as ridiculous. The one that the government in exile told them wouldn't work. But would Monty listen? Noooooooooooo. "They're not professional soldiers, so I must know more than them."

Monty gets my vote, maybe not up there at the very top, but definitely in the running. An arrogant, pompous ass.

Yeah, Patton was arrogant and pompous ass too, but at least he knew it, and had good cause to be arrogant and pompous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congratulations! You have managed to bring to this thread all the historical scholarship and insightful analysis which you display in your posts in the Peng thread.

[PiggDogg]

kburns24: "Zhukov has to be up there as one of the worst commanders. After the Stalin purges, this idiot is given the reins? Stalin wouldn't have had nearly the amount of losses had he not killed his best military minds early in the war."

--------

Are you kidding about Zhukov. I am no Russian or Communist lover by any means, but Zhukov is probably one of the absolute "best" commanders of WW2. At every place that he command, he won.

In 1941, in initial German rush to Leningrad, Zhukov commanded at that city, stablized the front at the city, and saved that city from German capture, albeit at horrendous cost.

Later in l941, Zhukov commanded at Moscow, saved the city from German capture, and, with the help of the Russian winter, he even counterattacked throwing the Germans back from Moscow's front door. Once again, he accomplished it at horrendous cost.

In 1942, Zhukov commanded the defense of Stalingrad and the incredible Russian encirclement of the German 6th Army. Granted, Hitler's stupidity contributed mightily to the German defeat, but, guess what - Zhukov won, of course with horrendous loss, but not a horrendous as Zhukov's prior two battles.

During the rest of the war in old mother Russia, Zhukov continuted to win wherever he commanded. But actually, after Stalingrad, the Russians could hardly lose barring utter stupidity, which the Russians did not show.

Notice that Zhukov and, for that matter, all Russian commanders lost battles and won battles at horrendous loss. Horrendous loss was almost a prerquisite for Russian battle in WW2. The Russians paid the major butcher bill to defeat the best army in WW2, the German. The western democracies of course contributed most of the materiale to defeat the Nazis.

The USA, the UK, Canada, Poland, Austrailia and the rest of the world contributed in blood to the Allied victory and I respect and do not belittle their loss. However, have no doubt - the Russians, military & civilians, paid the 'major' butcher bill to defeat Nazi German.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com

[ramor]

Montgomery all the way. The war could have went on another five years if he had been at the helm tidying up and preparing(And all the other allied nations would have run out of airborne troops by then).

[kburns24]

Yes, Zhukov may have won many battles, but at what cost?

Yes, battles were won and Germany was defeat. Great.

He is my pick because of the utter waste he displayed at throwing men and material at the German war effort on the East Front.

A great military mind puts into consideration all aspects of a battle.

One being, victory at what cost?

Zhukov knew that he had millions of men to pull from and he was reckless in his tactics when employing them.

I suppose you'll be defending trench warfare and its effectiveness in WWI also? Another great waste.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst:

And who the hell devises a plan where your advance relies on a single elevated road? The planned axis of advance that every military man ...knew was insane. The route that ...armed forces had wargamed in the past and discounted as ridiculous...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're talking about the Germans in the Ardennes, right? 1940 or 1944?

[BloodyBucket]

Colonel Klink. He lets Hogan get away with it every damn episode.

[HRM JeffRoi]

My vote defintely goes to Graziani, although if you roll in political and economic decisions, Hitler is tough to beat.

I'm damn glad that someone mentioned Montgomery. Too bad impatient Churchill replaced Auchinleck with Monty, the war in North Africa would most likely have been over sooner had someone pressed the attack after the first battle of El Alamein. Monty gets my vote for worst Allied commander.

[Herr Oberst]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

That's the best way to win. Duh.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuh, right...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I am glad the rest of this thread didn't devolve into the same tired old Monty/Patton debate. Both were brilliant in their own right - and Monty's strength was as a trainer. Read about what he did while in command of South East Army; that was where his true talent was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Alot of the names listed here have their moments. Any commander who really lacked skills all around shouldn't have even been there.

The Paulus reference earlier was an interesting one. Paulus was a desk officer who should have been given logistics or something like that to run. Field commander quality? Hardly. And his promotion to Field Marshall wasn't his fault if you catch my meaning.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Herr Oberst ]

[Herr Oberst]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Congratulations! You have managed to bring to this thread all the historical scholarship and insightful analysis which you display in your posts in the Peng thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*bows*

I live only to serve and please.

I shall now retire to the Peng Thread, and await my next chance to sally forth with my own opinion.

Given the qualitative nature of the thread title, that is all that we have here. Opinion. And mine is that Monty was not a good field commander. And my main gripes with him were espoused. Perhaps not in a bookish fashion that may have been more to your liking, filled with dates, casualty accounts, or specific events.

[Herr Oberst]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're talking about the Germans in the Ardennes, right? 1940 or 1944?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch! Er, um, hmm... Your selective editing was truly evil...

My own opinion of Operation Market Garden comes from lots of discussion (albeit years ago) with a Dutch Captain who was intimately involved in the operation. Back during the planning stages of Market Garden he thought it was an insane maneuver, and I trust his judgement more than any other historian I have read.

[Scooter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper:

For a six-year-long war, you have to make A LOT of mistakes to earn the title of worst commander. Graziani and other losers of one battles cannot get that title.

1) Hitler

2) Montgomery - yes, Monty. Any general could have beaten the Germans at El Alamein, his sin was not catching Rommel in the long march across the desert. That setup the Tunisian battle, which slowed the Allied defeat of Germany. In Sicily, he moved too slow. In Italy, his insistance on going up the boot before the Salerno landings put the Germans on alert, and pulled German troops down to the Salerno area when the landings took place. In Normandy, he got nowhere. He couldn't close the Falaise Gap. Operation Market-Garden had the dual sins of ignoring intelligence about SS panzers in Arnhem, and depending on a single road. Not taking the sea passages to Antwerp forced another battle, and delayed the opening of the port (leading to Allied difficulties against the West Wall). In the Ardennes, he had negligable positive effect on the battle (read "A Time For Trumpets"), and wanted to delay the counterattack until February. In the Reichswald, I'll give him a pass because he faced most of the remaining coherent German forces and the groud was muddy. However, Operation Varsity could have been unnecessary if he didn't discourage the 9th Army from capturing a bridge across the Rhine. Once the British crossed the Rhine, they moved slowly, and continued to move slowly until the 82nd Airborne Div spurred them to hurry up and keep the Reds out of Denmark.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second these two choices for the same reasons given by Aacooper.

[Tanaka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

... Are you kidding about Zhukov. I am no Russian or Communist lover by any means, but ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One funny thing about this is...

If any ones here said that Rommel, Guderian or any other Nazi German General were the best commanders of the 2nd WW, it would not state " I am no German or Nazi lover by any means,but..."

Quick question: Was Stalin a "Communist"?

:cool:

PS- I must say... I don't love any Russian woman ( I could, but I don't) nor am I a member of the communist party

[MrSpkr]

You know, I should be working right now, but I gotta weigh in on Monty. I agree that he was easily the worse of the major Allied field commanders.

Simply put, Montgomery did the least amount of work with the greatest amount of support of any of the Allied generals. The details have been hashed over once -- his failure to accomplish his self-set first day goals in Normandy until weeks after the invasion; his criminally negligent failure to act to close the Falaise Gap before large numbers of German troops and equipment escaped (thus likely lengthening the war by several months); his insistence on taking the lion's share of supplies to conduct MarketGarden (at the expense of other offensive operations with a better chance of success), an operation to which his own commanders objected; his failure, in light of the Allied supply woes to seive Antwerp and clear the Scheldt so those supply problems could be alleviated; his REFUSAL to act quickly in the Bulge (Eisenhower had to threaten him to get ANY response whatsoever); etc., etc. However, in response to Mr. Dorosh's clever line suggesting that the German's got praised for doing something 'militarily ridiculous' by moving through the Ardennes in 1940 and 1944, yet Monty gets grief for taking a similar risk in MarketGarden, I say 'HOGWASH'!

The German plan was only seen as a high risk by commanders who did not understand the speed and possibilities of mechanized warfare. It certainly was NOT dependent on ONE single road down which ALL supplies had to travel and it DID NOT risk the lives of 35,000 airborne troops who would be wiped out if the offensive encountered any difficulties or opposition and it DID NOT require a precise series of identifiable bridges be captured intact in order to meet the timetables. IT had some degree of flexibility (admittedly not a lot, but some). If the armored spear ran into significant Allied defenses, it could be moved laterally to attack in other areas and was not required to attack in a narrow, easily defined area. To infer that Market Garden was simply a daring, cunning risk gone wrong is simply insane. Market Garden should never been allowed to occur. Eisenhower justified Market Garden as an acceptable risk that he supported, but the truth is he was under enormous political pressure to allow Montgomery's operation to occur.

Interestingly, Monty did not even accomplish the task he used as a primary argument to win Ike's support - that the entire operation would occur in the Scheldt Estuary, clearing the way to open up Antwerp.

WHy did Market Garden fail? Well, obviously the fact the Bittrich's panzer were moved to Arnhem did not help matters. But of greater importance was the fact that Montgomery moved so slowly in late August/early September that he was unable to prevent the evacuation of 60,000 German soldiers from the 15th Army (facing the Canadian 1st Army). These soldiers would form the backbone of the German defenses. Had Montgomery moved a bit faster, he might have been able to prevent the evacuation and succeeded at MarketGarden despite the preposterous risk he was taking.

I guess the question is, what kind of maniac drops airborne troops 150km behind enemy lines on top of known enemy armor units? Insanity, or ego -- either way, this operation alone would earn him worst general in my book.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think Rommel is over-rated in some ways, but we have discussed all this before. He was certainly wrong with his defending on the beaches concept. Not that v. Runstedt had the energy to direct a mobile defence in Normandy (Rommel probably would have been good at that, actually.)

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Rommel would have been good at it, then why didn't he propose it? The problem with the mobile battle at Normandy concept is that the Germans did not have control of the air. They were incapable of conducting a mobile battle because of a lack of air superiority and the nature of the terrain (as the allies found out when trying to break through the bocage - and as the Germans found out when attempting to counterattack through the bocage). I personally don't see any alternative to the beachfront defense which Rommel advocated.

One invasion that failed btw was the Soviet invasion at Ozereyka Bay in ... 43 I believe.

[Tanaka]

Dieppe ! Who had the brilliant idea of an amphibious operation on that place in August 42 ? :eek:

[PiggDogg]

kburns24: "Yes, Zhukov may have won many battles, but at what cost? Yes, battles were won and Germany was defeat. Great. He is my pick because of the utter waste he displayed at throwing men and material at the German war effort on the East Front. A great military mind puts into consideration all aspects of a battle. One being, victory at what cost? Zhukov knew that he had millions of men to pull from and he was reckless in his tactics when employing them. I suppose you'll be defending trench warfare and its effectiveness in WWI also? Another great waste."

>>>>>

Once again, I am no great Russian/communist lover, However ... When oneu fight wars, one beats his opponent by using the assets that are given. Zhukov beat the bar none 'best' army in WW2, the German Army. In fact, the Russians almost, but not quite, did it by themselves.

Zhukov used his assets: lots of warm bodies, lots of good, easy to produce tanks, lots of lend lease materiale, and a culture that had a cheap opinion of human life. The Russians bled the Germans white. There was no other way for the Russians to win. If Zhukov had to send 10 Russian to kill one German and had to lose 5 of those Russians to kill the German, his country was willing to pay the price. Zhukov did the best he could with what he had. Zhukov overwhelmed the Germans. No one else (German, American, British, etc.) could have done better with the WW2 Russian army. They could have only done the same: win at horrendous cost.

In fact, the Western allies did basically did the same thing as the Russians except with finesse: overwhelm the Germans. The Western allies simply saved the high butcher bill by having and using effectively a whole lot of artillery and a whole lot of infantry killing Sherman tanks.

In fact, CMBO shows, in general, that if one is given enough time and if one can eliminate all the enemy's armor and have one mobile infantry killing cannon (a tank) left alive, that remaining cannon will kill the enemy infantry and that side will win.

Zhukov certainly was not a perfect commander, but he continuously won in many most difficult circumstances and in most pivitol battles: Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc. He is nowhere near the worst major commander of WW2. In fact, he is near one of the best commanders of WW2. (and I really don't like communitsts, but I can read and understand history.)

Cheers

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka:

Dieppe ! Who had the brilliant idea of an amphibious operation on that place in August 42 ? :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mountbatten. He might be a good candidate for the list, actually.

[CombinedArms]

My sense of Monty was that he was--as a human being--a major pain in the butt. And his generally arrogance and I-know-it-all-and-deserve-all-the-credit qualities, plus his constant demand to control all the forces, won him many enemies, both in his own time and posthumously. And he could NOT move fast to save his own life. But he was an excellent planner and a tenacious fighter. He was the central operational planner of the Normandy invasion, for example, which has been rightly called his finest hour. And while he could overplan an attack, as in the Rhine Crossing, when planning for a set-piece attack was demanded, as at El Alamein (no cakewalk) or for Overlord, he was really in his element. Moreover, he generally won the battles he engaged in (though rarely quickly enough to suit his critics). Market-Garden being one of the few exceptions.

So, though I personally come close to despising the man as an individual, it seems to me hard to argue he was the worst military commander of WWII. You've got to lose a few more battles (or, as in Hitler's case, major campaigns--or wars) to qualify for that. Similarly, attacks on MacArthur seem more motivated by a dislike of his personality (which is a very reasonable response!) than on a serious argument that his generalship was the worst of the war. He may have blundered several times in the Phillipines (and later in Korea, though that's another issue) but his New Guinea campaign and much of his reconquest of the Phillipines seems to me pretty brilliant--and it certainly succeeded. That his motives were largely egocentric doesn't alter the fact that he won, and often with limited resources leveraged to the max.

[Rooster]

I read just enough to make me dangerous But here's what I think. I also think it's hard to pin Monty as the worst, because he was not without merit as a commander. He inspired the 8th Army to achieve what they achieved in Africa -- his ego and eccentricities helping to counter the Dessert Fox persona that had shaken the British army. In Normandy his unflappable character allowed him to carry out multiple thrusts and keep a lot of German hardware tied down around Caen. That WAS his job.

Ritchie, there's truly a bad British commander.